Islamabad:
The Pakistan Electoral Commission (ECP) presented its written declaration to the constitutional bench (CB) of requests from the Supreme Court’s hearing in the reserved seats case, declaring that the PTI was never gone to the case before the SC.
On January 13, 2024, a three-member SC bench confirmed the ECP ordinance on December 22, 2023 declaring intra-party surveys of the null PTI and no. Consequently of the verdict of the SC and its “misinterpretation” by the ECP, the candidates of the PTI had to contest the general elections of February 8, 2024 as independents.
Eighty independent candidates arrived in the National Assembly and then joined the Sunni Council of Ittehad (SIC) in an apparent attempt to request seats reserved for women and minorities. The ECP, however, refused to allocate the seats to the party, a decision that the SIC challenged before the Supreme Court.
On July 12, 2024, a complete bench of the Supreme Court through a majority of 8 to 5 raised the PTI as a parliamentary party, noting that 39 of the legislators who had submitted certificates of their affiliation with the PTI with their application documents were already PTI legislators.
The SC judged that the remaining 41 legislators who had not submitted the affiliation certificates at the time of the submission of appointment documents could now do it within 15 days.
The government subsequently filed requests against the decision and now a CB hears the case.
In its response, the ECP said that the majority of judges who had approved the order of July 12 had not taken note of the clarifications issued on September 14 and October 18.
“Before these clarifications, the case was never presented before the complete bench of 13 members. The majority decision violated article 10-A and article 4 of the Constitution.”
The ECP said the majority judgment wrongly mentioned that the PTI was present before the court. He argued that PTI had never asked for the reserved seats, and he had not wanted them on any forum.
He declared that thanks to the decision of July 12, the SIC was substituted in place of PTI. He indicated that the list of reserved seats is subject before the survey in accordance with the electoral calendar. However, the PTI was ordered to submit the list of seats reserved after the elections, which is contrary to the law.
In addition, he said that 39 members were declared members of the PTI contrary to the legal procedure. A repair under article 187 was granted beyond the scope of the jurisdiction of the Court and that the ECP was not heard when article 94 of the electoral law was invalidated.
Meanwhile, the PPP also submitted additional declarations to the Supreme Court, claiming that the decision of July 12 of the court beyond the request and the reparation requested.
The real problem was simply whether the SIC was entitled to reserved seats. The question of the allocation of seats reserved for PTI has never been under study. This same question – if the SIC was entitled to reserved seats – was asked before the ECP, the High Court of Peshawar and the SC, he said.
The party argued that the SC had made a decision on the reserved seats which was not linked to the real petitions which seized it. The court exceeded his jurisdiction and granted a compensation that had never been requested. The PTI and the SIC are two distinct political parties, he added.
